Slow growing my ass

The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in
size.

Is this considered "slow growing"?

Dwight

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:36:10 -0400, doofy wrote
(in article <47f97a8d$0$36387$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>):

> The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in
> size.
>
> Is this considered "slow growing"?
>
> Dwight

If I have done the math correctly the doubling time of the diameter of a
tumor is:

td = ((t1-t0) * ln 2)/(2 ln (d1/d0)) where d1 is the diameter at time t1 and
d0 is the diameter at t0.

Assuming your cancer started with a single cell 1.5 years ago, d0 ~ 10 to 30
micrometers (most Eukaryotic animal cells), d1 ~ 1.5 cm yields a doubling
time of ~ 11 to 12 days.

Of course this assumes that every cell reproduces at the same rate and that
the mass is spherical but it does suggest that it is pretty fast growing.

--
Dedman


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 05:43:28 -0400, Dedman wrote
(in article <0001HW.C41F650000127DC3F0182648@free.teranews.com >):

> d1 ~ 1.5 cm

Typo. d1 ~ 1 cm

--
Dedman


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 6, 9:36 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
> The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in
> size.
>
> Is this considered "slow growing"?
>
> Dwight

The big question is how big was it when it was unnoticeable? - this is
unknown so it doesn't help you.

One way to calculate size backward is to take the PSA rise and
multiply it by the PSA expression of your Gleason grade - as per
Strum's numbers in "The Primer on PCa"

What most studies indicate that the important factors are the rate of
PSA rise (PSA velocity), the Gleason grade (below GG 3 confirmed by a
specialist is a pussy cat and 4 & 5 are tigers), and PSA density (PSA
per volume of gland).

They are all crude indicators but that is all we have.

Lud

Lud wrote:
> On Apr 6, 9:36 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>> The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in
>> size.
>>
>> Is this considered "slow growing"?
>>
>> Dwight
>
> The big question is how big was it when it was unnoticeable? - this is
> unknown so it doesn't help you.

You're right.

>
> One way to calculate size backward is to take the PSA rise and
> multiply it by the PSA expression of your Gleason grade - as per
> Strum's numbers in "The Primer on PCa"

I'm not sure if my PSA is indicative of much. .67 when taken 1.5 years
ago. .8 when taken in December.



>
> What most studies indicate that the important factors are the rate of
> PSA rise (PSA velocity), the Gleason grade (below GG 3 confirmed by a
> specialist is a pussy cat and 4 & 5 are tigers), and PSA density (PSA
> per volume of gland).

3+4 for me.


I'm trying to get my imaging date moved way up.

"doofy" <nope@notme.com> wrote in message
news:47f97a8d$0$36387$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in
> size.
>
> Is this considered "slow growing"?
>
> Dwight
All cancers are not created equal

ysdywmf wrote:
> "doofy" <nope@notme.com> wrote in message
> news:47f97a8d$0$36387$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in
>> size.
>>
>> Is this considered "slow growing"?
>>
>> Dwight
> All cancers are not created equal
>
>

4 score and 7mm ago....

On Apr 7, 4:51 pm, Lud <Ludwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> The big question is how big was it when it was unnoticeable? - this is
> unknown so it doesn't help you.
> ...

Exactly.

To be precise, we can't say that the tumor was unnoticeable.
All we can say is that it was unnoticed. It might have been
1 cm then too, but the physician didn't happen to feel it,
or didn't know what he was feeling (not many really do unless
they are specialists).

Alan

Alan Meyer wrote:
> On Apr 7, 4:51 pm, Lud <Ludwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>...
>>The big question is how big was it when it was unnoticeable? - this is
>>unknown so it doesn't help you.
>>...
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> To be precise, we can't say that the tumor was unnoticeable.
> All we can say is that it was unnoticed. It might have been
> 1 cm then too, but the physician didn't happen to feel it,
> or didn't know what he was feeling (not many really do unless
> they are specialists).
>
> Alan

I didn't much like the doctor from back then, so I'd like to say he was
incompetent, but the uro said anyone would have picked it up. I can't
say for sure. Only thing I can say for sure is that people keep telling
me about low PSA tumors being particularly aggressive, and that I'm
really uncomfortable waiting for two months to get some imaging.

On Apr 7, 12:51 pm, Lud <Ludwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 9:36 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
> > The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in
> > size.
>
> > Is this considered "slow growing"?
>
> > Dwight
>
> The big question is how big was it when it was unnoticeable? - this is
> unknown so it doesn't help you.
>
> One way to calculate size backward is to take the PSA rise and
> multiply it by the PSA expression of your Gleason grade - as per
> Strum's numbers in "The Primer on PCa"
>
> What most studies indicate that the important factors are the rate of
> PSA rise (PSA velocity), the Gleason grade (below GG 3 confirmed by a
> specialist is a pussy cat and 4 & 5 are tigers), and PSA density (PSA
> per volume of gland).
>
> They are all crude indicators but that is all we have.
>
> Lud

You should be able to get an MRI / SI at UCSF quite quickly (within
weeks) - it should give you an idea of the extent and give you peace-
of-mind (a little at least)
Lud

Lud wrote:

> You should be able to get an MRI / SI at UCSF quite quickly (within
> weeks) - it should give you an idea of the extent and give you peace-
> of-mind (a little at least)

I've had many MRIs and CTs in public hospitals, with no urgency. I don't
ever remember waiting more than 2-4 days, and even that wait is usually
driven by my gym schedule or the wind, not the hospital.

I.P.

On Apr 8, 10:42*am, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
> Lud wrote:
> > You should be able to get an MRI / SI at UCSF quite quickly (within
> > weeks) - it should give you an idea of the extent and give you peace-
> > of-mind (a little at *least)
>
> I've had many MRIs and CTs in public hospitals, with no urgency. I don't
> ever remember waiting more than 2-4 days, and even that wait is usually
> driven by my gym schedule or the wind, not the hospital.
>
> I.P.

I.P...At UCSF, John Kurhanewicz is the 3T Endorectal MRI with
spectroscopy man and Katsuto Shinohara is the CDUS lead. These guys
are both "artists", they are the ones you want to read your imaging
data. It might take a bit longer to get on their calendars...Ron

ron wrote:
> On Apr 8, 10:42 am, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
>> Lud wrote:
>>> You should be able to get an MRI / SI at UCSF quite quickly (within
>>> weeks) - it should give you an idea of the extent and give you peace-
>>> of-mind (a little at least)
>> I've had many MRIs and CTs in public hospitals, with no urgency. I don't
>> ever remember waiting more than 2-4 days, and even that wait is usually
>> driven by my gym schedule or the wind, not the hospital.
>>
>> I.P.
>
> I.P...At UCSF, John Kurhanewicz is the 3T Endorectal MRI with
> spectroscopy man and Katsuto Shinohara is the CDUS lead. These guys
> are both "artists", they are the ones you want to read your imaging
> data. It might take a bit longer to get on their calendars...Ron

Shinohara is who I'm shooting for. Just got an appointment, 5/1.
Better, but I would still like earlier.

I'm eating anti-oxidants out the ying yang too. Rustoleum is an
anti-oxidant, ain't it?